Georgia governor to open movie theaters, gyms etc..

[stollcpa]

Some day you’re gonna age a bit and realize not to take yourself so seriously and learn to recognize sarcasm when I’m responding to a white knight. Or not, I don’t give a rats ass.

my neighbor is Chinese. That much is true. I would never point and say that. The fact you thought that was serious is beyond pathetic.

This is what things have become in this country. No sarcasm, no jokes, no kidding. Someone’s feelings hurt all the time.

Took me too many years not to let people calling me a bushhog ( derogatory term someone came up with for Amish) or just kid me about my Amish heritage.

My smart best friend helped me get over it. Guys I played golf with knew it would bother me and screw up my game if they kidded me about Amish. One in particular really gave me a hard time. He was actually my golf league partner when I first moved back to the community. With my friend’s advice I rolled out to the first tee of a golf trip with 15 other guys fully dressed in Amish cloths and boots head to toe and a long beard. Played the full round in that get up and exorcised all demons.

The problem was really mine. I am proud of my heritage and can now take kidding. And there are many things to make light of.

 

[UncleMark]

This is what things have become in this country. No sarcasm, no jokes, no kidding. Someone’s feelings hurt all the time.
[...]
The problem was really mine. I am proud of my heritage and can now take kidding. And there are many things to make light of.

One of my coworkers (sales guy) is a late thirties/early forties black man. One day, when he was new, he was having a rough time with how he was required to push his order through our system (which can be a real PITA at time), and was bitching about how "that's ****ing stupid" and the like. I told him to calm down, and "quit being so uppity". His jaw dropped, his eyes grew to saucers... and then he broke out into the loudest guffaw he'd had since he'd been there.

 

[hoosboot]

This is what things have become in this country. No sarcasm, no jokes, no kidding. Someone’s feelings hurt all the time.

Took me too many years not to let people calling me a bushhog ( derogatory term someone came up with for Amish) or just kid me about my Amish heritage.

My smart best friend helped me get over it. Guys I played golf with knew it would bother me and screw up my game if they kidded me about Amish. One in particular really gave me a hard time. He was actually my golf league partner when I first moved back to the community. With my friend’s advice I rolled out to the first tee of a golf trip with 15 other guys fully dressed in Amish cloths and boots head to toe and a long beard. Played the full round in that get up and exorcised all demons.

The problem was really mine. I am proud of my heritage and can now take kidding. And there are many things to make light of.

I miss those glorious old days when folks randomly mocked the heritage/background/family history of people they hardly knew or just made snap judgements about their capabilities based upon insignificant things like their race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. We need to get back to that.

But, seriously though, glad that you were able to shrug off the rudeness of your golfing buddies by learning to love yourself. That's pretty much the most important thing there is.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I see Simon Malls are going to reopen this weekend, though stores will not be required to. I am not about to go, but I will be curious to see reports on how crowded the malls are and how many people social distance.

 

[UncleMark]

I see Simon Malls are going to reopen this weekend, though stores will not be required to. I am not about to go, but I will be curious to see reports on how crowded the malls are and how many people social distance.

Is mall walking still a thing?

 

[82hoosier]

I am curious to see what the restaurant model looks like where they can operate profitably with only a max 25% occupancy and no standalone bar business.

 

[UncleMark]

I am curious to see what the restaurant model looks like where they can operate profitably with only a max 25% occupancy and no standalone bar business.

Fixed costs will eat them alive.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Fixed costs will eat them alive.

You'd be surprised.

 

[UncleMark]

You'd be surprised.

How so? I of course defer to your expertise. Edumacate me.

 

[HillzHoozier]

Thanks. We must’ve learned camaraderie at Trump U together.

I remember you from art class...

 

[82hoosier]

The Georgia restaurants are going to be 75% empty. And that’s when things are busy! They are going to have disposable menus and plastic silverware. And you’re going to be able to hear every word of the conversation from the table four tables over. And that is going to be if it is “packed”. And that’s on weekends! Mondays Tuesdays and Wednesdays it’s going to be a ghost town. And they’re gonna be operating with a minimal serving staff. You can’t run a business that way. Not to mention that about 25% of the workforce will be out of a job. The nicer the restaurant the worse it’s going to be.

And then there is of course more than 50% of the people who don’t want to die of coronavirus. Their governor is doing a great job!

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

The Georgia restaurants are going to be 75% empty. They are going to have disposable menus and plastic silverware. And you’re going to be able to hear every word of the conversation from the table four tables over. And that is going to be if it is “packed”. And that’s on weekends! Mondays Tuesdays and Wednesdays it’s going to be a ghost town. And they’re gonna be operating with a minimal serving staff. You can’t run a business that way. Not to mention that about 25% economy it still doesn’t have a job. The nicer the restaurant the worse it’s going to be.

You can't run a business being closed either.

 

[stollcpa]

You can't run a business being closed either.

You’re wasting your time with folks like that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

How so? I of course defer to your expertise. Edumacate me.

Okay, how deep do you wanna go here? Because this is going to be a TL;DR...

Fixed costs can be a bitch when business is slow, but they are an even bigger bitch when the doors are locked, so for most restaurants, opening at limited capacity is going to be very attractive, since they will probably expect to lose less money than they are losing right now. However, different groups of restaurants are operating on different models right now, and they will view this type of reopening differently. I can think of three distinct groups, from worst-positioned to best:

First are the restaurants who cannot manage their fixed costs even closed. For the most part, we are talking about restaurants that are carrying a lot of debt, so even if they lay off the entire management team, they don't have enough in savings to keep the electricity running (gotta keep that freezer on!), pay the rent, or make loan payments. These restaurants have deadlines by which they need business to get back to pre-Covid levels or they close. Some have already closed. Others will be closing soon. A limited opening might allow some of them to stretch the pain out a little longer, but they can all see the end.

Second are the restaurants who were able to manage their fixed costs by closing. These are generally going to be restaurants that furloughed most of their management teams (and support teams in the case of large companies), don't carry a lot of debt, and have enough cash reserves to keep paying the rent and bare necessities even while the doors are locked. They are probably very iffy about a soft open. On the one hand, they are already losing money, so maybe some revenue could help, but on the other hand, opening is going to bring some extra fixed costs back into play (more salaries, insurance, etc.), so there is a minimum level of sales they will need to do to make it at least as good as staying closed.

Third are the restaurants who aren't closed right now. The ones who have gone to a carryout-only model have found a way to make it work. Most of them are only surviving right now, not thriving, but their fixed costs are just as high as they ever were before (or close, at any rate). For them, a soft open carries many of the risks of the second group above, but they have an added advantage: they are expecting the recent increase in carryout business to continue, perhaps not at the current level, but certainly at a level much higher than pre-Covid times. For these restaurants, sales will be down from last year, but not nearly as much as one might expect, since a big chunk of those sales have simply moved off-site. Expectations at 25% capacity may be that sales are somewhere in the range of 40-70% of what they were the previous year, which isn't great, but can be done profitably.

Long story short, for most restaurants and restaurant groups (at least the well-managed ones), fixed costs aren't the problem. Restaurants tend to have higher labor and higher product cost than most other retail industries, so it will be easier for restaurants to handle the scaling down of costs that will be necessary. For the restaurants that are bleeding from fixed costs, as I mentioned above, they are all screwed, anyway.

 

[stollcpa]

Okay, how deep do you wanna go here? Because this is going to be a TL;DR...

Fixed costs can be a bitch when business is slow, but they are an even bigger bitch when the doors are locked, so for most restaurants, opening at limited capacity is going to be very attractive, since they will probably expect to lose less money than they are losing right now. However, different groups of restaurants are operating on different models right now, and they will view this type of reopening differently. I can think of three distinct groups, from worst-positioned to best:

First are the restaurants who cannot manage their fixed costs even closed. For the most part, we are talking about restaurants that are carrying a lot of debt, so even if they lay off the entire management team, they don't have enough in savings to keep the electricity running (gotta keep that freezer on!), pay the rent, or make loan payments. These restaurants have deadlines by which they need business to get back to pre-Covid levels or they close. Some have already closed. Others will be closing soon. A limited opening might allow some of them to stretch the pain out a little longer, but they can all see the end.

Second are the restaurants who were able to manage their fixed costs by closing. These are generally going to be restaurants that furloughed most of their management teams (and support teams in the case of large companies), don't carry a lot of debt, and have enough cash reserves to keep paying the rent and bare necessities even while the doors are locked. They are probably very iffy about a soft open. On the one hand, they are already losing money, so maybe some revenue could help, but on the other hand, opening is going to bring some extra fixed costs back into play (more salaries, insurance, etc.), so there is a minimum level of sales they will need to do to make it at least as good as staying closed.

Third are the restaurants who aren't closed right now. The ones who have gone to a carryout-only model have found a way to make it work. Most of them are only surviving right now, not thriving, but their fixed costs are just as high as they ever were before (or close, at any rate). For them, a soft open carries many of the risks of the second group above, but they have an added advantage: they are expecting the recent increase in carryout business to continue, perhaps not at the current level, but certainly at a level much higher than pre-Covid times. For these restaurants, sales will be down from last year, but not nearly as much as one might expect, since a big chunk of those sales have simply moved off-site. Expectations at 25% capacity may be that sales are somewhere in the range of 40-70% of what they were the previous year, which isn't great, but can be done profitably.

Long story short, for most restaurants and restaurant groups (at least the well-managed ones), fixed costs aren't the problem. Restaurants tend to have higher labor and higher product cost than most other retail industries, so it will be easier for restaurants to handle the scaling down of costs that will be necessary. For the restaurants that are bleeding from fixed costs, as I mentioned above, they are all screwed, anyway.

Very good explanation Sir.

For the life of me I can’t figure you out.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Okay, how deep do you wanna go here? Because this is going to be a TL;DR...

Fixed costs can be a bitch when business is slow, but they are an even bigger bitch when the doors are locked, so for most restaurants, opening at limited capacity is going to be very attractive, since they will probably expect to lose less money than they are losing right now. However, different groups of restaurants are operating on different models right now, and they will view this type of reopening differently. I can think of three distinct groups, from worst-positioned to best:

First are the restaurants who cannot manage their fixed costs even closed. For the most part, we are talking about restaurants that are carrying a lot of debt, so even if they lay off the entire management team, they don't have enough in savings to keep the electricity running (gotta keep that freezer on!), pay the rent, or make loan payments. These restaurants have deadlines by which they need business to get back to pre-Covid levels or they close. Some have already closed. Others will be closing soon. A limited opening might allow some of them to stretch the pain out a little longer, but they can all see the end.

Second are the restaurants who were able to manage their fixed costs by closing. These are generally going to be restaurants that furloughed most of their management teams (and support teams in the case of large companies), don't carry a lot of debt, and have enough cash reserves to keep paying the rent and bare necessities even while the doors are locked. They are probably very iffy about a soft open. On the one hand, they are already losing money, so maybe some revenue could help, but on the other hand, opening is going to bring some extra fixed costs back into play (more salaries, insurance, etc.), so there is a minimum level of sales they will need to do to make it at least as good as staying closed.

Third are the restaurants who aren't closed right now. The ones who have gone to a carryout-only model have found a way to make it work. Most of them are only surviving right now, not thriving, but their fixed costs are just as high as they ever were before (or close, at any rate). For them, a soft open carries many of the risks of the second group above, but they have an added advantage: they are expecting the recent increase in carryout business to continue, perhaps not at the current level, but certainly at a level much higher than pre-Covid times. For these restaurants, sales will be down from last year, but not nearly as much as one might expect, since a big chunk of those sales have simply moved off-site. Expectations at 25% capacity may be that sales are somewhere in the range of 40-70% of what they were the previous year, which isn't great, but can be done profitably.

Long story short, for most restaurants and restaurant groups (at least the well-managed ones), fixed costs aren't the problem. Restaurants tend to have higher labor and higher product cost than most other retail industries, so it will be easier for restaurants to handle the scaling down of costs that will be necessary. For the restaurants that are bleeding from fixed costs, as I mentioned above, they are all screwed, anyway.

I have always heard that restaurants make a good profit on drinks. Clearly there is a good markup on soda and tea. I assume for alcohol. I wonder if carryout impacts that, I know if I am taking something home I tend to drink what I have at home.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I have always heard that restaurants make a good profit on drinks. Clearly there is a good markup on soda and tea. I assume for alcohol. I wonder if carryout impacts that, I know if I am taking something home I tend to drink what I have at home.

Plenty make money only on alcohol (probably beverages at large) and break even on food.

 

[82hoosier]

You can't run a business being closed either.

But sometimes you can lose more money by being open. And that is why some businesses close. That’s what getting my MBA at Indiana and 20 years of corporate banking taught me.

 

[UncleMark]

For the most part, we are talking about restaurants that are carrying a lot of debt, so even if they lay off the entire management team, they don't have enough in savings to keep the electricity running (gotta keep that freezer on!), pay the rent, or make loan payments.

These were who I had in mind mostly. Thinking more mom and pop type places rather than well established, highly successful establishments.

Restaurants tend to have higher labor and higher product cost than most other retail industries, so it will be easier for restaurants to handle the scaling down of costs that will be necessary.

Yeah, I get how they can scale their labor and cost of goods up and down fairly quickly, and yes, I get that at the higher end or larger sized places those will be a bigger operational cost proportionally than fixed cost in smaller outfits.

Of course, it all depends on each establishment's particular situation. Debt service and rent would be the biggest variables, it seems to me. Franchisees would seem to be particularly vulnerable.

Thanks for the response. Still seems to me the little guys are gonna get hurt more than the big boys. Size matters.

 

[twenty02]

I think the mom and pop places can muddle through.... unless they are deep in debt already.

The places that look extremely dicey to me are the higher end joints. I just don't see how there isn't a huge wave of closings in that segment.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

20 years of corporate banking

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have always heard that restaurants make a good profit on drinks. Clearly there is a good markup on soda and tea. I assume for alcohol. I wonder if carryout impacts that, I know if I am taking something home I tend to drink what I have at home.

Plenty make money only on alcohol (probably beverages at large) and break even on food.

This is both true and a myth at the same time.

1. Soft drinks do tend to have a really high markup. Think about the last time you paid $2.50 for a coffee, and then ask yourself how much it really would have cost you to make that coffee yourself.
2. Alcohol tends to have a lower markup percentage-wise (especially high-end hooch), but it's still decent, and as an added bonus, alcohol for most restaurants is what we sometimes call "free money" or an "upsell." That is, dude was already going to buy the steak, anyway, so if you sell him an expensive glass of wine to go with it, even at a low markup, you're still making extra money off a seat that is already filled. It's much the same with dessert and appetizers. Profit margins are often lower on these items, but that's okay, because it's better to make a little money off you while you sit around talking to your friends than none at all.
3. Very, very few restaurants treat food as a loss leader. Even bars which make almost all of their money from booze will still mark up their food some amount. The usual exception is your basic salty bar snack - say a dollar for a giant basket of peanuts. Bars are willing to give you free salt whenever you want, for obvious reasons.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

These were who I had in mind mostly. Thinking more mom and pop type places rather than well established, highly successful establishments.

Yeah, I get how they can scale their labor and cost of goods up and down fairly quickly, and yes, I get that at the higher end or larger sized places those will be a bigger operational cost proportionally than fixed cost in smaller outfits.

Of course, it all depends on each establishment's particular situation. Debt service and rent would be the biggest variables, it seems to me. Franchisees would seem to be particularly vulnerable.

Thanks for the response. Still seems to me the little guys are gonna get hurt more than the big boys. Size matters.

A lot of the little guys are going under because they don't have the cash to get by. But some of the big boys are having trouble because of debt. Mom and Pop's are rarely carrying large debt, because banks generally only lend money to established, successful restaurateurs. You want a big loan so you can copy your profitable concept to the other side of town? Here's a check! You need a loan because your 50-year old diner needs some repairs? Get lost.

Edit to add: In my experience. YMMV in different markets with different banks, of course.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

2. Alcohol tends to have a lower markup percentage-wise (especially high-end hooch), but it's still decent, and as an added bonus, alcohol for most restaurants is what we sometimes call "free money" or an "upsell." That is, dude was already going to buy the steak, anyway, so if you sell him an expensive glass of wine to go with it, even at a low markup, you're still making extra money off a seat that is already filled. It's much the same with dessert and appetizers. Profit margins are often lower on these items, but that's okay, because it's better to make a little money off you while you sit around talking to your friends than none at all.

It has to be quite high margin, particularly if you consider that my wife enjoys cheap NZ Sauv Blancs (take Kim Crawford for instance) that cost as much by the glass as the entire bottle costs at a liquor store. Similarly, I might pay mid-teens for scotch on the rocks vs. the $40/bottle cost. I would assume that a restaurant purchases at more favorable (wholesale) prices than I would, but in the worst case, it would be paying the same. I'm not sure what percentage of a fifth my drink accounts for, but it's probably got 10 of those (at least).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It has to be quite high margin, particularly if you consider that my wife enjoys cheap NZ Sauv Blancs (take Kim Crawford for instance) that cost as much by the glass as the entire bottle costs at a liquor store. Similarly, I might pay mid-teens for scotch on the rocks vs. the $40/bottle cost. I would assume that a restaurant purchases at more favorable (wholesale) prices than I would, but in the worst case, it would be paying the same. I'm not sure what percentage of a fifth my drink accounts for, but it's probably got 10 of those (at least).

Alcohol pricing rules are set by the state, but I believe the standard is that restaurants pay roughly what you pay, or a little less, for hard booze. In Ohio, the difference is 5%.

For beer and wine, however, they are paying less than you. Most grocery stores charge the state minimum for beer and wine, so you just have to look up what the minimum markup is in your state, and you can figure out what the wholesale is. Using Ohio as an example again, the minimum markup for wine is 50%, so the wholesale is 2/3 of what you pay at the grocery store, and beer is 25%, so the wholesale is 3/4 of what you pay.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Alcohol pricing rules are set by the state, but I believe the standard is that restaurants pay roughly what you pay, or a little less, for hard booze. In Ohio, the difference is 5%.

For beer and wine, however, they are paying less than you. Most grocery stores charge the state minimum for beer and wine, so you just have to look up what the minimum markup is in your state, and you can figure out what the wholesale is. Using Ohio as an example again, the minimum markup for wine is 50%, so the wholesale is 2/3 of what you pay at the grocery store, and beer is 25%, so the wholesale is 3/4 of what you pay.

If you were to estimate where profits come from (realizing there may not be any or limited profits with plenty of restaurants), how would the distribution break down among Food, Alcohol, Other Beverages and Other (I'm probably missing some things - e.g. take out)? I'm thinking a upper-mid tier restaurant (maybe $$$ in terms of cost)

 

[i'vegotwinners]

You can't run a business being closed either.

it's actually much cheaper than running one open, with no business.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Below is a SARS-CoV-2 training video for bars:

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Okay, how deep do you wanna go here? Because this is going to be a TL;DR...

Fixed costs can be a bitch when business is slow, but they are an even bigger bitch when the doors are locked, so for most restaurants, opening at limited capacity is going to be very attractive, since they will probably expect to lose less money than they are losing right now. However, different groups of restaurants are operating on different models right now, and they will view this type of reopening differently. I can think of three distinct groups, from worst-positioned to best:

First are the restaurants who cannot manage their fixed costs even closed. For the most part, we are talking about restaurants that are carrying a lot of debt, so even if they lay off the entire management team, they don't have enough in savings to keep the electricity running (gotta keep that freezer on!), pay the rent, or make loan payments. These restaurants have deadlines by which they need business to get back to pre-Covid levels or they close. Some have already closed. Others will be closing soon. A limited opening might allow some of them to stretch the pain out a little longer, but they can all see the end.

Second are the restaurants who were able to manage their fixed costs by closing. These are generally going to be restaurants that furloughed most of their management teams (and support teams in the case of large companies), don't carry a lot of debt, and have enough cash reserves to keep paying the rent and bare necessities even while the doors are locked. They are probably very iffy about a soft open. On the one hand, they are already losing money, so maybe some revenue could help, but on the other hand, opening is going to bring some extra fixed costs back into play (more salaries, insurance, etc.), so there is a minimum level of sales they will need to do to make it at least as good as staying closed.

Third are the restaurants who aren't closed right now. The ones who have gone to a carryout-only model have found a way to make it work. Most of them are only surviving right now, not thriving, but their fixed costs are just as high as they ever were before (or close, at any rate). For them, a soft open carries many of the risks of the second group above, but they have an added advantage: they are expecting the recent increase in carryout business to continue, perhaps not at the current level, but certainly at a level much higher than pre-Covid times. For these restaurants, sales will be down from last year, but not nearly as much as one might expect, since a big chunk of those sales have simply moved off-site. Expectations at 25% capacity may be that sales are somewhere in the range of 40-70% of what they were the previous year, which isn't great, but can be done profitably.

Long story short, for most restaurants and restaurant groups (at least the well-managed ones), fixed costs aren't the problem. Restaurants tend to have higher labor and higher product cost than most other retail industries, so it will be easier for restaurants to handle the scaling down of costs that will be necessary. For the restaurants that are bleeding from fixed costs, as I mentioned above, they are all screwed, anyway.

the thing about non fixed costs are, that they aren't fixed.

labor and supplies/food/beverage costs can be adjusted to meet demand, fixed costs can't.

fixed costs, mostly to the feudal lords and lending/credit card banks who get money at zero percent, are the big problem, and what will close those that close.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Fixed costs will eat them alive.

fixed costs, both commercial and at home, are what's forcing them back open, and trumping health being the deciding factor in all reopening.

and what will be what forced the permanent closing of those that don't reopen, and those who won't survive even reopening at diminished earnings.

while everyone else but white collar who could work from home suffered 100% of the losses, protecting the investor class, feudal lords', and lenders' revenue streams 100%, was the govt's economic Covid strategy from day one. (even though interest rates were zero percent for the lenders, so pausing them would have cost them relatively zero long term).

that and letting Covid give cover to Wall St stealing a couple trillion more from Ft Knox as a cherry on top.

 

[UncleMark]

fixed costs, both commercial and at home, are what's forcing them back open, and trumping health being the deciding factor in all reopening.

and what will be what forced the permanent closing of those that don't reopen, and those who won't survive even reopening at diminished earnings.

while everyone else but white collar who could work from home suffered 100% of the losses, protecting the investor class, feudal lords', and lenders' revenue streams 100%, was the govt's economic Covid strategy from day one. (even though interest rates were zero percent for the lenders, so pausing them would have cost them relatively zero long term).

that and letting Covid give cover to Wall St stealing a couple trillion more from Ft Knox as a cherry on top.

Are you running a script to post your replies?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Are you running a script to post your replies?

if you take issue with anything i say, you are more than welcome to debate me on it.

you and others never do, (always just go personal/troll), because you know you can't credibly dispute what i say.

you just don't like what i say, even if it's the most pertinent or important thing said.

why is that????

 

[UncleMark]

you just don't like what i say, even if it's the most pertinent or important thing said.

why is that????

I've been bought and paid for by the feudal lords and Comcast. Duh.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I've been bought and paid for by the feudal lords and Comcast. Duh.

probably a lot more truth there than you grasp, even though you were just trolling again because you have no refute, know that you don't, so further made my point for me.

i don't pull this sht with you or others.

put up or shut up.

 

[outside shooter]

I wonder if the absurdity of our society has finally broken my sarcasm detector.

Me too!

It took me like 4 years to realize that the entire slogan "Make America Great Again" was brilliant sarcasm by Trump, all along.

 

[hoosboot]

I've been bought and paid for by the feudal lords and Comcast. Duh.

You sock puppet! Were you also at the seance held in the executive saunas at Comcast raising money for Biden by selling the blood of the working class in commemorative pint glasses?

 

[Standard Issue]

Are you running a script to post your replies?

Give a kid a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If you were to estimate where profits come from (realizing there may not be any or limited profits with plenty of restaurants), how would the distribution break down among Food, Alcohol, Other Beverages and Other (I'm probably missing some things - e.g. take out)? I'm thinking a upper-mid tier restaurant (maybe $$$ in terms of cost)

Well, when I was running the joint in Perrysburg, our rough breakdown was about 70% food, 25% alcohol, 5% soft drinks, something like that. So in terms of revenues, obviously food was the biggest player.

But, even though we kept our food cost at about 30% (I think overall alcohol was closer to 40%, because of lower markups on wine), food involves heavier labor costs than alcohol, so the bar drinks might have earned their money slightly more efficiently.

All that being said, I doubt you can find me a model of a restaurant anywhere that serves upscale casual food or better without alcohol profitably. You really need both to make it work.

 

[Sope Creek]

But, even though we kept our food cost at about 30%.

Is that raw materials only or prepared/served food cost?

Does that 30% imply a margin of 70% on food? Or would labor and overhead (i.e., Goat's management salary and "free" alcohol) figure in before calculating the profit or loss margin?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Is that raw materials only or prepared/served food cost?

Does that 30% imply a margin of 70% on food? Or would labor and overhead (i.e., Goat's management salary and "free" alcohol) figure in before calculating the profit or loss margin?

That's the cost of the food itself. If you pay $10 for a burger, it probably has about $3.50 worth of food in it. That does not include storage, labor, etc. Only how much it costs to bring the product into the restaurant.